The climate is a complex matter and we globally have many bright people on the problem. If you see yourself armchairing on that topic, you might consider that you just don't know enough.
It is a bit like doing an emergency break with a train that is about to roll into a pit filled with lava. You need to break way ahead to avoid the lava pit.
80/20 breaking still lands you in the lava pit. And the later you decide to break, the harder that breaking will have to be. Until at some point breaking alone is no longer enough. That is where we are.
You are right, I was unnecessarily harsh here, due to my own frustration that in 2025 people still can't grasp the current levels of scientific discourse on climate change — despite an abundance of good material on the matter. Maybe 20 years ago when things didn't look as overwhelmingly clear I would have reacted differently, but now it just feels exhausting.
You can not tone-police pro-climate posts while ignoring all the uncivil knee-jerk anti-climate posts that are full of insulting language about progressives and contain endless strawman arguments.
You had a chance to educate me, but you chose to attack me on a personal level instead, and you defend a policy that sets a goal that must be reached at all cost with a disregard for any negative effects.
You had the chance to learn something and chose to feel attacked on a personal level instead. This wasn't an attack on you (I don't know you after all), this was arguing against a insufficiently informed take on a topic that will likely give the grandkids of your grandkids sleepless nights. So if you feel attacked, I am sorry, but the topic is more important than you and me.
Also: The math on the costs of the consequences of climate change overwhelmingly shows that every proposed measure is a no-brainer from an economic standpoint. But this is also widely known knowledge.
These goals are what should limit the negative effects as much as possible. Its exact opposite of “disregard for any negative effect”. Its also broadly agreed on by sciencists and experts.
Science is not based on agreement or consensus, it is based on evidence. Arguing that there's scientific agreement or consensus for anything is anti-scientific.
> Arguing that there's scientific agreement or consensus for anything is anti-scientific.
Do you imagine that in a world of scientific men and women engaging in empiricism, we should disregard the agreement in our discussions and simply rediscover medical science again and again from ground zero? We're going to tell patients "Oh, wait a few lifetimes, we're busy reconfirming everything because credibility and consensus is anti-scientific."
That's what it means to disregard consensus. At some point you have to trust an entire discipline of professionals if you want to do Enormous Scale Medicine, not just singular pinpoint arguments or results.
